Some of you may remember a thread here on f-16.net which linked to an F-35 engine run video on youtube. That was an official Lockheed video but was not placed on youtube by Lockheed. I thought they (Lockheed) might be p*ssed about that but I now understand they may try to use youtube exposure to their advantage. By that I mean LM may post first flight videos directly to youtube. That's my read on it anyway, nothing official. We will know in less than a week.....

Some of you may remember a thread here on f-16.net which linked to an F-35 engine run video on youtube. That was an official Lockheed video but was not placed on youtube by Lockheed. I thought they (Lockheed) might be p*ssed about that but I now understand they may try to use youtube exposure to their advantage. By that I mean LM may post first flight videos directly to youtube. That's my read on it anyway, nothing official. We will know in less than a week.....

I was the one that posted that video to youtube. I posted it there because it was posted on the JSF website for the public domain, but some users were having problems viewing the video. If I am not allowed to post videos from the jsf site again, please let me know and I'll be fine with it (or take down the one I already posted). That thread is here by the way for reference --> http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-6477.html

Anyways, I'm glad the first taxi went well. I hope the rest goes well too!

Posted: 08 Dec 2006, 13:52

by Smithsguy

habu2 wrote:One taxi test down, two to go before first flight.

Here's the info I heard (just a tad more detail) -- "... performed Ramp and 30 knot taxi tests [12/7]. [12/8] ... to do 65 and 80 knot taxi tests and on the 9th they are to do 110 knot taxi tests." -- I don't think any of that is confidential...

Ciao,
Smithsguy

Posted: 08 Dec 2006, 18:07

by tiedyed

habu2 wrote:One taxi test down, two to go before first flight.

Dumb question: Will there be any media there to capture the first flight? Just curious to know how long it would be before there is any footage of the aircrafts first flight available to the general populace.

Posted: 08 Dec 2006, 18:21

by habu2

tiedyed wrote:Dumb question: Will there be any media there to capture the first flight?

No.

All photo/video is LM only. Anything else is from "the other side of the fence."

Photo from Mondays taxi test

The F-35 Lightning II rolls out on December 7th, 2006 at NAS Fort Worth to conduct taxi tests. [Photo by Keith Robinson]

Re: Photo from Mondays taxi test

Posted: 12 Dec 2006, 16:01

by idesof

KeithTCU82 wrote:Here is a shot I took from Monday . . .

The F-35 Lightning II rolls out on December 7th, 2006 at NAS Fort Worth to conduct taxi tests. [Photo by Keith Robinson]

Bravo! Congratulations on an excellent shot. A couple of points that have not been often discussed: the F-35 is a very "tall" airplane, with a very tall landing gear and an enormous amount of room under the fuselage. Compare to the F-22, which sits very close to the ground. In fact, the F-35, which is a smaller aircraft and has much smaller vertical tail surfaces, is taller than an F-22 on the ground. Why is that? I suspect it has something to do with the STOVL requirements for the F-35B. However, this should make maintaining this baby that much harder. One of the great advantages of the F-22 is precisely that it sits so close to the ground, at least from a maintenance standpoint.

Further, the front landing gear door is HUGE. I suspect we'll see a different door on the next aircraft to roll off the line (remember, this baby is more a prototype than a production-representative test vehicle, as it was built before all the weight-saving measures were put in place by LM).

Now, the vertical tail surfaces are tiny compared to those of the Raptor, indicating that maneuverability will be drastically limited compared to the F-22. Same is true of the horizontal tails. LM is claiming F-16-like maneuverability, but it will be interesting to see if they really can achieve that with what appear to be small tail surfaces (you should all know by now that I am one of the F-35's staunchest advocates so please don't accuse me of being unduly negative--I may be rooting for the F-35, but I am also an objective observer and not a mere "fanboy").

Finally, is the F-35 the only modern single-engined fighter with twin tails? I cannot remember any other off the top of my head. That may also explain their small size: for a single-engined fighter, smaller twin tails may be sufficient to achieve acceptable lateral stability.

Anyway, nice pic. Look forward to first flight!

RE: Re: Photo from Mondays taxi test

Posted: 12 Dec 2006, 19:09

by lamoey

Further, the front landing gear door is HUGE. I suspect we'll see a different door on the next aircraft to roll off the line (remember, this baby is more a prototype than a production-representative test vehicle, as it was built before all the weight-saving measures were put in place by LM).

Now, the vertical tail surfaces are tiny compared to those of the Raptor, indicating that maneuverability will be drastically limited compared to the F-22.

As part of the weight saving campaign for the F-35 the front landing gear door was changed to two smaller doors. As a consequence the vertical tails could be reduced saving a lot of weight. I don't know if the first aircraft have the smaller tail though.

Re: RE: Re: Photo from Mondays taxi test

Posted: 12 Dec 2006, 19:53

by Shaken

lamoey wrote:

Further, the front landing gear door is HUGE. I suspect we'll see a different door on the next aircraft to roll off the line (remember, this baby is more a prototype than a production-representative test vehicle, as it was built before all the weight-saving measures were put in place by LM).

Now, the vertical tail surfaces are tiny compared to those of the Raptor, indicating that maneuverability will be drastically limited compared to the F-22.

As part of the weight saving campaign for the F-35 the front landing gear door was changed to two smaller doors. As a consequence the vertical tails could be reduced saving a lot of weight. I don't know if the first aircraft have the smaller tail though.

The big landing gear door will act like a sail in crosswinds, particularly on approach. This is why making two smaller doors allows them to reduce the vertical stabilizer size. My understanding is that the fin change will not appear until the next airframe (AB-1, the first STOVL prototype), although that information is second-hand.

I don't know why the previous poster equates vertical stabilizer to maneuverability. A jet fighter does its manuevering primarily in roll and pitch. Roll authority is in the ailerons (and sometimes the horizontal stabilizer) and pitch is a combination of lifting surface and elevators). Since the flight computer does turn coordination (the useful rudder operation in ACM), I'm told modern pilots are taught to plant their feet flat on the cockpit floor when dogfighting, safely away from the rudder pedals.

-- Shaken - out --

Re: RE: Re: Photo from Mondays taxi test

Posted: 12 Dec 2006, 20:50

by idesof

Shaken wrote:I don't know why the previous poster equates vertical stabilizer to maneuverability. A jet fighter does its manuevering primarily in roll and pitch. Roll authority is in the ailerons (and sometimes the horizontal stabilizer) and pitch is a combination of lifting surface and elevators). Since the flight computer does turn coordination (the useful rudder operation in ACM), I'm told modern pilots are taught to plant their feet flat on the cockpit floor when dogfighting, safely away from the rudder pedals.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the canted tails of the F-18 are canted precisely to retain yaw control authority at high AOA. The Raptor's tails are canted principally for RCS reasons, but the enormous rudders are necessary for yaw control at high AOA, which directly impacts an airplane's ability to point its nose at a target. That, at least, is my understanding, but I may be wrong.

Re: RE: Re: Photo from Mondays taxi test

Posted: 12 Dec 2006, 21:08

by Raptor_claw

Shaken wrote:

lamoey wrote:

Further, the front landing gear door is HUGE. I suspect we'll see a different door on the next aircraft to roll off the line (remember, this baby is more a prototype than a production-representative test vehicle, as it was built before all the weight-saving measures were put in place by LM).

Now, the vertical tail surfaces are tiny compared to those of the Raptor, indicating that maneuverability will be drastically limited compared to the F-22.

As part of the weight saving campaign for the F-35 the front landing gear door was changed to two smaller doors. As a consequence the vertical tails could be reduced saving a lot of weight. I don't know if the first aircraft have the smaller tail though.

The big landing gear door will act like a sail in crosswinds, particularly on approach. This is why making two smaller doors allows them to reduce the vertical stabilizer size. My understanding is that the fin change will not appear until the next airframe (AB-1, the first STOVL prototype), although that information is second-hand.

I don't know why the previous poster equates vertical stabilizer to maneuverability. A jet fighter does its manuevering primarily in roll and pitch. Roll authority is in the ailerons (and sometimes the horizontal stabilizer) and pitch is a combination of lifting surface and elevators). Since the flight computer does turn coordination (the useful rudder operation in ACM), I'm told modern pilots are taught to plant their feet flat on the cockpit floor when dogfighting, safely away from the rudder pedals.

-- Shaken - out --

Yes, vertical tails and rudders are typically sized based on a critical landing condition rather than up and away maneuverability. Typically, they are sized based on landing with some combination of crosswind, mass property asymmetry, and failures state (including engine(s) failures for multi-engine a/c). As to your other point (regarding roll and pitch being the primary axes for maneuvering) that is true, but doesn't quite tell the whole story.Without getting too far into the nitty-gritty, it comes down to roll coordination. Regardless of whether the coordination command is coming from the pilot or the FLCS, it (usually) winds up at the same place - the rudder. For 'conventional' aircraft configurations, in most of the 'conventional' envelope (moderate-to-high speed, normal AOAs) the roll rate available is limited by available roll control power (i.e. aileron authority) or other factors (structural loads, etc) rather than the rudder (i.e. coordination requires comparatively little rudder). Once you begin to expand into higher AOA's, though, the situation changes. Beginning somewhere in the low 20's of AOA (rough, typical numbers given) and extending into the mid 30's, the rudder rapidly loses effectiveness. The wing surfaces (aileron, TEF's) tend to hold their effectiveness somewhat better. At some point, the roll surfaces are able to create more moment than the rudder can effectively coordinate. At that point, the roll rate commanded has to be reduced (i.e. not all available aileron used) to avoid rudder saturation, which would lead to excessive sideslip, sloppiness, and unpredictability in rolls.

Getting back to the comment:

Now, the vertical tail surfaces are tiny compared to those of the Raptor, indicating that maneuverability will be drastically limited compared to the F-22.

Above the mid 30's in AOA, the rudders become completely ineffective due to blanking from the wing, so the next-best control pair (usually differential horizontal tail) must be used for yaw control. So, in this regard, if one is talking maneuvers at very high AOA (things like Cobras, J-turns, etc, or 'helicopters') rudder size becomes effectively irrelevant. Not that there aren't other limiting factors......

Posted: 13 Dec 2006, 17:03

by msupepper

I'm hearing that first flight will be Thursday, weather permitting. As the previous link indicated, 110kt taxi tests are complete. The flight crew is supposed to be getting the day off to prepare for first flight, but general feeling is that they are superstitious about flying on the 13th. Lockheed will announce internally one hour before flight for people to come out and watch. There will also be an internal live feed as well as streaming video for subscribers on teamjsf.com.

As a correction to a previous post, the first STOVL aircraft is 2BF:001, not AB-1

Posted: 13 Dec 2006, 17:47

by Ztex

New guy here...
Just wanted to share in the excitment!

Just heard that tomorrow may be the day! WOOT

Here's a couple of shots from high speed taxi day...

The F-35 Lightning II during high speed taxi tests on Dec 12th [Photo by Zane Adams]

The F-35 Lightning II during high speed taxi tests on Dec 12th [Photo by Zane Adams]

Televised perhaps? Fox News may carry it. Seems like the carried the A380 first flight.

Posted: 13 Dec 2006, 21:34

by TJSmitty

LinkF16SimDude wrote:Televised perhaps? Fox News may carry it. Seems like the carried the A380 first flight.

I doubt it, Lockheed's own press release said the media would be notified upon conclusion of the flight.

It will be on the Lockheed INTRANET and the TEAMJSF site......unfortunately, I don't work for the JSF supplier that I could have watched it with.

Smitty

Posted: 14 Dec 2006, 14:25

by Smithsguy

TJSmitty wrote:A "reliable source" is telling me 0900 CST 14 DEC 06

Smitty

I heard the same, pending weather, wind etc.

Ciao,
Smithsguy

Posted: 14 Dec 2006, 14:30

by Ztex

My sources say it may be more likelly to fly on Friday.

They may have to do another high speed taxi to verify a fix to a problem on the previous hs taxi...

Hurry up an wait...

Posted: 14 Dec 2006, 14:42

by Scorpion1alpha

Like the pictures you took Ztex, especially like the bottom one as I like that angle. Take some more!

Friday now? Argh!

Posted: 14 Dec 2006, 16:16

by Ztex

Thanks.

I just heard there will be no flight today...

Posted: 14 Dec 2006, 20:53

by JoeSambor

I have to say it is very cool to be able to sit in my living room in Belgium and see AA-1 sitting in the run station. Let's hear it for broadband!

Best Regards,

Posted: 14 Dec 2006, 21:07

by JoeSambor

Ummm, somebody is getting strapped into the cockpit, and there are lots of cameras around...I am waiting on engine start!! Hope this isn't just a test!

Posted: 14 Dec 2006, 22:37

by Ztex

Another high speed taxi test I suppose....can you let us in on the video link or is this the JSF team link?

Posted: 14 Dec 2006, 22:49

by JoeSambor

It looks like just another taxi test. They have finished and are back in the run station. You can see the streaming video from within the LM Aero Intranet, and there is a supplier link as well, not sure what the difference is.

Someone mentioned a page or so back about the F-35 being taller than the F-22 on the ground. There is a fairly obvious reason for this. The F-35 need more room to load the JDAMS (or whatever A2G munitions) internally than the F-22 needs for the A2A missiles it carries internally. I have talked with a loader (I'm just a crew chief, after all!) about a demo he watched live a while back on the F-22. He said, from his perspective, that the F-22 didn't look like it had much room to play with on loading it. Maybe they actually thought about this and fixed the potential problem on the F-35 before it became an issue. These are just oppinions, though.

Oh, sorry if I just posted to remarkably similar posts. I had computer issues when I tried to post this the first time...

Posted: 15 Dec 2006, 16:34

by Lightndattic

Anyone know where there's a webcast of it? I tried pentagonchannel.mil, but it's not there.

Posted: 15 Dec 2006, 16:50

by msupepper

There is a webfeed on teamjsf.com, but it is subscription-based and expensive. As I understand it, no media is allowed, but they will have a press briefing and post video for public view on teamjsf.com immediately following flight.

The flight is to last approximately one hour and will include retracted landing lear and various systems tests.

As of now there is a weather hold due to fog. Will update again if possible.

Posted: 15 Dec 2006, 16:54

by lamoey

Nice videos.

It looked to me that the horizontal stabilizer was not moving at all while taxing. I have not seen this before in a jet with some sort of damping system. Could it be that they disabled the horizontal damper for the taxi tests just to avoid any oscillations that this may lead to?

Posted: 15 Dec 2006, 17:26

by LMAero

The fog is lifting here at LMAero and first flight for the F-35 is now scheduled for 11:00cst. Stay tuned.

She had a hell of a roar to her when she took off. It was awesome baby!

Posted: 15 Dec 2006, 20:18

by JoeSambor

dmackenzie1,

You have an awesome photo perch!!

Best Regards,

Posted: 15 Dec 2006, 20:21

by navav2002

Whoot!! Nice Job Fellows

Posted: 15 Dec 2006, 20:23

by JoeSambor

She has landed, after only 35 minutes! Jon ran the test cards quickly...and I bet there are a lot of people at Lockheed who are breathing a lot easier now!!

Posted: 15 Dec 2006, 20:29

by Smithsguy

So it was complete not cut short? That's a relief...

Posted: 15 Dec 2006, 21:07

by JanHas

First flight / soaking is complete!! whohaa!!! Bloody Marvelous!!!

Posted: 15 Dec 2006, 21:18

by idesof

Smithsguy wrote:So it was complete not cut short? That's a relief...

The press is already spinning it as a failure, saying that the jet landed "early," 35-min. into a planned hour-long flight, with LM not providing any explanations for the change in plans.

Posted: 15 Dec 2006, 21:43

by LinkF16SimDude

The press...idiots...just...ugggghhh!! Idiots!

Posted: 15 Dec 2006, 22:32

by tiedyed

idesof wrote:

Smithsguy wrote:So it was complete not cut short? That's a relief...

The press is already spinning it as a failure, saying that the jet landed "early," 35-min. into a planned hour-long flight, with LM not providing any explanations for the change in plans.

Well, wait moment or two before deciding what is and is not spin. The first flight was delayed, and its first flight was cut nearly in half. That's more than just foobar with a line of code or something else likewise. I am surprised by the cheers simply because the plane finally got its feet off of the ground since that feet should be elementary today.

Posted: 15 Dec 2006, 22:41

by idesof

tiedyed wrote:Well, wait moment or two before deciding what is and is not spin. The first flight was delayed, and its first flight was cut nearly in half. That's more than just foobar with a line of code or something else likewise. I am surprised by the cheers simply because the plane finally got its feet off of the ground since that feet should be elementary today.

First flights are always conservative. If the test instrumentation or any system isn't working the way the engineers thought it should, the flight will be aborted. The last thing the F-35 program needs is a first flight like the F-14A had.

Posted: 15 Dec 2006, 23:00

by ArrowHawk

Has it ever occurred to anyone that during the flight test brief that the engineers and pilot decided to take out some test points? Just because the flight didn't last as long as LM originally said or as long as "we" think it should last does not mean in wasn't a successful flight. Jon Beesley took off in the F-35 and landed safely at the same airport on the same day. Successful flight in my book. And if there are squawks, then there are squawks. This is a brand new airplane. I always find it amazing how many people can become "virtual" engineers or test pilots when they don't know the full story.

Great job LM on a successful inaugural first flight of the F-35A Lightning II!!

Posted: 15 Dec 2006, 23:05

by sferrin

tiedyed wrote:I am surprised by the cheers simply because the plane finally got its feet off of the ground since that feet should be elementary today.

I was watching the video. While he was airborne and out of view of the camera, a still photo of the AC was shown and a message scrolled across the bottom of the page. His projected landing time in that message was 13:15 CST. I believe he touched down @ 13:18...

Again, nice Job Fellows...

Posted: 16 Dec 2006, 00:20

by idesof

navav2002 wrote:I was watching the video. While he was airborne and out of view of the camera, a still photo of the AC was shown and a message scrolled across the bottom of the page. His projected landing time in that message was 13:15 CST. I believe he touched down @ 13:18...

Again, nice Job Fellows...

Well there you go, they altered the flight plan prior to the flight. Guess no flying monkey tearing out the plane's components after all...

Posted: 16 Dec 2006, 00:26

by Raptor_One

tiedyed wrote:I am surprised by the cheers simply because the plane finally got its feet off of the ground since that feet should be elementary today.

Give us a break, man! If you were involved in such an endeavor like the design and construction of a fighter aircraft, you would cheer too the first time it took to the skies. They're not cheering because the thing flew in a literal sense. First flights are ceremonial occasions these days. Something can always go wrong, but nobody expected that the F-35 wouldn't actually fly. C'mon man! Really!

Wrong. Firefox genuinely doubted the F-35 would even get airborne. Too bad there is no stick out your tongue smiley

Can't say a whole lot right now, but I will say that Jon had to climbout at a steeper angle than expected (at mil power) to keep the airspeed within limits.
Also, the F-16's apparently had trouble keeping up (during the climbout).

Wasn't in the debrief, but from all accounts the airplane was 'rock solid'.

Not bad for a 'fat' ostrich....

Posted: 16 Dec 2006, 02:37

by MechFromHell

I wonder if there will be an interview done with the pilot?? I would love to hear his first hand account of the flight and the way the aircraft "actually" performed. He is now the man that all aviation lovers are jealous of!! Congrats again to all involved!

Posted: 16 Dec 2006, 02:59

by LinkF16SimDude

idesof wrote:It doesn't look like the pilot was flying with the HMD, and you can clearly tell the airplane doesn't have a HUD either. Am I wrong? Is the HMD ready?

That is indeed interesting. Could there be a camera on the jet somewhere that could feed a gizmo that then puts of a pseudo-HUD display on one of the heads-down screens? Or maybe he just flew it the old-fashioned way, with just the regular flight instruments (albeit displayed on a flat screen)?

Flight cut short

"He [test pilot Jon Beesley] said one of two air data sensors was not operating properly. Although it did not pose a danger, the procedure called for ending the flight at that time, preventing completion of the remaining few tests, including raising the landing gear, officials said."

Seems like pretty normal stuff for early in a flight test program.

The takeoff and landing certainly looked solid. I was also struck by how clean the F135 burned than the chase Viper's engine (P&W F100?). The size differences in the two aircraft was also worth nothing. I'm looking forward to seeing photos of the aircraft with the gear up.

-- Shaken - out --

Posted: 16 Dec 2006, 03:43

by exciter_ignition

Absolutely an amazing sight to see. The Eagle definately flies high and proud!

Posted: 16 Dec 2006, 04:20

by ArrowHawk

Despite the air data sensor problem, in my eyes, still a successful flight.

Posted: 16 Dec 2006, 06:35

by Corsair1963

Fist flight cut short????

Posted: 16 Dec 2006, 06:55

by RuffRider101

Good job to LM even though there were some minor glitches. Will someone bless this post with a video link once it is made public? Thanks.

Posted: 16 Dec 2006, 07:44

by Scorpion1alpha

On behalf of my section, I'd like to offer my congratulations on the 1st flight of the F-35 Lightning II. It sure looks beautiful in the air.

The 2nd half of air dominance has begun.

Posted: 16 Dec 2006, 08:08

by LordOfBunnies

Everything has some unforseen rough spots. It's a matter of going in a fiddling with numbers in the software probably. I don't work in design but the digitized flight control systems of todya probably mean tweaks to flight controls are a little easier.

Posted: 16 Dec 2006, 09:04

by cywolf32

Considering the complexity of systems involved, I am very impressed. Alot of new systems involved here. New avionics, new flight control systems, new engine and nozzle type, etc. To have only a minor air data problem is a true testament to this machine and the people who brought it to fruition. Congratulations are indeed justified to everyone involved!!! I know I would be proud to be involved. I'm F-16 through and through. Its been an honest priviledge to work on her. I envy the ones who will take the next step foward with the F-35. She's one awesome aircraft if you ask me.

Posted: 16 Dec 2006, 09:18

by Sharkey

Excellent. My congratulations to LM and everyone else involved with the program. It is better to be safe than sorry. I am sure the following many many test flights will go well. I cannot even to begin to understand what is involved with developing and testing a plane that finally will enter active service. We may criticize or praise all we like but in the end it is the guy in the cockpit taking the risks. Seeing the photos of the first flight makes me wish I was an air force pilot and would get to fly this awesome aircraft. Good luck with the future development.

Test pilot Jon Beesley stated "It flies like a smaller and quicker Raptor”, which is a saying a LOT. And Beesley would know, he was previously the first flight pilot of the F-117 and F-22).

-- Shaken - out --

Posted: 16 Dec 2006, 19:11

by zeroyon04

Congratulations to the F-35 Lightning II and its first flight!!

Too bad I missed the webcast, I will have to wait for a downloadable video link...

Posted: 16 Dec 2006, 19:15

by msupepper

LinkF16SimDude wrote:

idesof wrote:It doesn't look like the pilot was flying with the HMD, and you can clearly tell the airplane doesn't have a HUD either. Am I wrong? Is the HMD ready?

That is indeed interesting. Could there be a camera on the jet somewhere that could feed a gizmo that then puts of a pseudo-HUD display on one of the heads-down screens? Or maybe he just flew it the old-fashioned way, with just the regular flight instruments (albeit displayed on a flat screen)?

I had been told that first flight was only cleared for VFR. I have no idea if that is true or even typical, but it would make sense. That's just one system they can eliminate to concentrate on other more pressing issues.

Posted: 17 Dec 2006, 00:09

by Thumper3181

Congratulations LM, PW, and team. Well done.

Posted: 17 Dec 2006, 01:17

by habu2

msupepper wrote:I had been told that first flight was only cleared for VFR.

AA-1 is only cleared for VFR at this time. It is not a 'first flight' issue. It will be VFR for the second & third flight etc. until equipment is added to make the jet IFR capable. Remember, AA-1 is a testbed, not really a production airframe.

The air data probe that failed was the same problem seen on Tuesday's high speed taxi test. That is why they had another high speed taxi test on Thursday, to verify the fix to the ADP. Unfortunately it failed again on rotation on Friday.

The first flight wasn't cut short, they just skipped the parts that required a functioning ADP, so it didn't take as long. So, after basic handling checks, they returned to base as planned. I guess what I'm trying to say is that they didn't say "oops, we have a problem, let's cut it short and RTB immediately" - instead they said "well that isn't working so we just won't do the tests requiring ADP, but we can do everything else" - which they did.

Posted: 17 Dec 2006, 01:24

by ArrowHawk

Thanks for the good info, Habu2. Like typical flight test, they had a contingency plan for such things.

Arrowhawk

Posted: 17 Dec 2006, 09:19

by Scorpion1alpha

Unfortunately, the media has a hard time explaining the "problem" and shorter 1st flight. They just see it as and like to label it a "failure" when in fact it was a overall a successful 1st flight.

The Lockheed Martin F-35 JSF, or "Lightning II," is the largest single defense program the US has ever had. Following the historic first flight of the aircraft on Friday, December 15, 2006, these plastic beverage cups were handed out to the workers of the Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company which designed and built the aircraft. There will never be another First Flight of the most-important fighter plane in history, and there's a limited number of workers at the company. So collect your own unique commemorative F-35 JSF cup today! (Similar to the durable plastic "keeper" cups at many restaurants.)

The Scenery is a housing development north of Fort Worth in the Path of were the Flight test occured....In Texas we call them Tract Homes..they try and see how many homes can you get on one Acre

Posted: 22 Dec 2006, 22:24

by Raptor_claw

J.J. wrote:Question: The scenery on the ground looks like a military living area. Anyone USAF servicemember who can/will identify this location?

I bet our service men and women wish their housing was that nice. Someone should post a picture of the actual on-base housing at the former Carswell AFB. The story goes that when Carswell 'shut-down', the state looked at using the housing for a low-security penitentiary, but couldn't because it didn't meet the building code standards required. (In simpler terms, the housing our service families had been using wasn't good enough for our criminals).

Not totally sure that story is 100% accurate, but that's what was going around.

Acutally the government turned the Old Hospital into a Female prison and all of the substandard Base housing located to the south of Carswell had been sold, Dirt cheap and was moved off now there is a Wal-MArt, Sams Club and a Lowes. My how things change.....

No Luck on a second flight this year. Today(Friday) started a week long holiday for all of the Lockheed Martin Fort Worth Plant

Posted: 24 Dec 2006, 04:59

by Ztex

I am not sure exactly where this housing is but it is not on base...it is just another fine example of suburban tract houses. Northern Tarrant COunty is full of this kind of development...one of the fastest growing counties in the country.